Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigdaddy @ Nov 12 2006, 07:45 PM) [snapback]347957[/snapback]</div>

Sony is selling the PS3 at a loss, no big secret there. They've got two goals for the PS3.. to provide an upgrade path for the PS2, obviously. And to push Blu-Ray into homes.

One of the reasons the PS2 was so popular was because it could also play DVDs. It was launched when DVD players were still on the expensive side (over 200 for a decent one) and one of the reasons it did well was because of that bundled DVD player. History will probably repeat itself with the PS3.

Blu-Ray is also a bit more interesting than HD-DVD just from a technical point of view.

 

I bought HD-DVD because, for movies, it does exactly what Blu-Ray does, and at half the price. (I paid $450 for my HD-A1 - They're now ~ $370 at internet stores). When I purchased mine the only HD-TV players available were the Toshiba for HD-DVD and the Samsung for Blu-Ray. My Toshiba has been glitch free; from what I've read, Samsungs have had problems.

Also, Toshiba showed good support by sending me a DVD firmware update. It improved boot-up speed and it added more high resolution multi-channel audio capability. I'm an audio entheusiast and have wanted for a long time a DVD player that has good, lossless, multi-channel audio, hopefully something considerably better than the current lossy Dolby Digital and DTS audio. Also, if you already own a multi-channel receiver or pre-amp that has 5.1 analog channel inputs, you can hook right up and bypass any further digital processing while experiencing the best multi-channel audio you've heard from any DVD player anywhere. All the much improved audio processing is done in the player.

Oh, did I mention the picture, it's very impressive.

From my reasoning, HD-DVD is less complicated, less precision, and cheaper to build. I don't care if it doesn't have the capacity that someday they'll be able to get from Blu-Ray, because for movies that added capacity just isn't necessary. From these thoughts, it seemed to me that, in the long run, HD-DVD should definitely be around for a good long time (it's cheaper in all respects). Blu-Ray will probably survive too because of its greater capacity that can be good for future games and interactivity.

 

I didn't read all the posts but IMHO, they have been haggling over this for so long that now both are obsolete and a new standard is here or very near to being released.


Wildkow

p.s. Oh there it is now. . .

http://www.about-electronics.eu/2006/07/13...hoice-obsolete/

http://dvdone.netblender.com/2006/10/10/is...y-obsolete.aspx

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/24/maxell_holo_storage/

http://eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle...equestid=354129

 

You're talking to someone who still has only an antenna!

Panasonic is touring their 103" Plasma ... saw it in Philly last week and was ready to take it with me! (would have been arrested in 30 seconds...!) I feel like we are all in the Matrix....!

 

As things stand now, if you pick blu-ray or HD-DVD, you are agreeing to be locked out of the content made only for the /other/ standard.

I suppose that is something of a half empty approach to the matter, but it is expensive enough that I personally will wait until I can play *all* 1080p content.

Which brings me to resolution. For me it is simple: 1080p or nothing. 1080i is qualitatively similar to 720p, and that is just not enough over standard DVD IMO to chase after. I feel the same (if not more) about upsampling.

If I had to replace my projector today, I would focus on projector noise and picture contrast, brightness if day viewing was a consideration, and pretty much ignore resolution. A good screen can be a smart use of money. I would try to standardize on HDMI connetions though, and hope the companies do not obsolete them the moment they are hacked. When I first started projecting movies at home, I though bigger was better. Nowadays I prefer quality over size, and set the picture to about 60".

Lastly, what to buy depends a lot on use. Games ? Computer use ? Over the air broadcasts (including NTSC signals) ? Ambient brightness ?

2010 sounds good to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigdaddy @ Nov 12 2006, 01:59 PM) [snapback]347867[/snapback]</div>

I am doing the same thing I did with the BetaMax/VCR battle. I am waiting on the sidelines and letting others put their money up and making decisions. These early decisions will full marketplace changes that no one can predict at this point. It is not worth it at this point, for me, to make the investment so early in the battle.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 13 2006, 08:57 AM) [snapback]348128[/snapback]</div>

It looks like the battle is actually over! The chip designer (forgot the name) that designed the original decoder chips has come up with a combo design that can handle both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

I would guess that a combo player will be on the market in less than a year.

 

With everything else that *should* be upgraded in a quality system to take full use of the HD quality, i think the player should be the last... As it's been said, the movie world is pretty much split on the issue right now, and you don't want to be locked out of one camp by choosing the other player. Also, there are very real potentials for dual players before too much longer, and some company (can't remember which) announced last week that they found some way to create a blue laser (used in blue-ray) on a silicon substrate instead of the sapphire substrate currently used, which will reduce costs dramatically for blue-ray players.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syclone @ Nov 13 2006, 09:19 AM) [snapback]348133[/snapback]</div>

I did a little googling and found this:

http://www.techspot.com/news/23521-broadco...hd-chipset.html

NEC has also developed a chip that will be released in April 2007

 

BTW, Many people know that BRay has a higher capacity than HD (for now anyway), but I decided to pull out the calculator to see how much space is required for an hour of real HD (1920 x 1080p):

(1920*1080 pixels/frame)(32 bits/pixel) (30 frames/sec)(3600 sec/hour)(GByte/8*1024*1024*1024 bits) = A WRONG ANSWER.

Hmmm. Where is the mistake ? I know I have to quarter the result for approximate MPG4 compression.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syclone @ Nov 13 2006, 09:32 AM) [snapback]348140[/snapback]</div>

Here's some more detail about the Broadcom chip:

EE Times article 1
EE Times article 2

The main hold out at this time is the Blu-ray camp with the licensing. I'm hoping at some point soon they will give in and allow multiformat players to be built. Maybe after they get some traction with the PS3 first. I should hope they already realize the majority of customers won't buy into the HD format until such a player exists. It obviously will take a lot of the format confusion out of it for them.

 

From Wikepedia:
Toshiba announced second generation HD DVD players for the US this fall, the Toshiba HD-A2 (Expected Pricing and Expected Availability: $499.99, October 2006) and Toshiba HD-XA2 ($999.99, December 2006). The high-end model, the HD-XA2, will feature HDMI 1.3 and 1080p output.[17]

My bolding of the HDMI spec. Makes me wonder how well HDMI 1.0 - 1.2 will work. If the past is anything to go by, not very well.

 

Actually I am partial to the download model. I keep hoping that as soon as Apple releases its iTV device that HD content will be available for purchase from the iTS and that it will play HD recorded streams. That will make any physical media unnecessary.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 13 2006, 11:24 AM) [snapback]348170[/snapback]</div>

You are a patient guy.

A 1920x1080p movie is around 3 MB/sec, a decent download averages around 0.2 MB/sec, or a time ratio of 15:1.

 

By the time the dust settles they'll probably both be obsolete. HVD is coming.

That said, exactly how much space do you need for a descent movie? As long as I can watch Ben Hur without having to switch discs, I really don't care. I'm not a gamer, so having a lot of "stuff" on a disc doesn't bother me. There comes a point where you don't notice improvements in resolution. How many "extras" can you watch?

I think there will be a split between movie watchers and those that wish to store content. So your computer (and those in the media industry) will move on to something that stores even more because they are producing stuff that needs to be archived. And the home movie buff will use something else for watching a simple movie.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Nov 12 2006, 06:21 PM) [snapback]347966[/snapback]</div>

Try a 1080p LCD. It looks even better!
[/b][/quote]
One point efficiency-minded readers might like to keep in mind, is that LCD uses less electricity than plasma (or CRT). Because of that plasma produces extra heat which raises the need for extra A/C to keep the living room comfortable. However it's hard to find LCD screens for much over 40" (this year anyway) if going big is your thing.

I would bet there would be dual-standard systems before long. As a Mac user, I was a little hesitant to burn DVDs since they used the DVD-R standard exclusively, and at the time there was a big debate over the relative merits of DVD-R vs. DVD+R. Now any $40 DVD player handles DVD-R, -R/W, +R, +R/W, -ROM, etc. The industry learned from the Beta vs. VHS war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DanH @ Nov 13 2006, 10:00 AM) [snapback]348151[/snapback]</div>

I will be on the sidelines for at least another two years and let all the "smart" people battle it out. Which ever system might be better technically does not ensure it a position of dominance in the marketplace - so I will not spend the $ on the device or the $ on the discs. And by then, the cost of acquiring whichever format wins will be a lot more reasonable and will have that many more titles and functions.

So I say Charge on and I will follow later guys when the smoke clears ...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 13 2006, 11:39 AM) [snapback]348176[/snapback]</div>

I would not be so monolithic about a relationship between resolution and file size. Different compression schemes result in different image quality at the same file size. For example at the same resolution, an h264 at 1500 kbps looks better than an 1500 kbps Xvid encoded movie. Ideally, a compression scheme that result in a small file size would result in good 1080p output.

Just take the current near-DVD quality files at the iTunes music store. A two hour movie is about 500MB, a two hour movie in a DVD is 6GBs!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 13 2006, 12:06 PM) [snapback]348204[/snapback]</div>

The iTunes movies are cropped for the iPod screen size. I cannot remember exactly, but somewhere around 350 x 250 pixels.

The numbers I used are based on the current compression schemes used in 1920 x 1080 HD-DVD/Blu-ray discs -- MPG4, so I stand by them. It is true that H.264 does somewhat better depending on the content, but not enough to change the math by a lot. As for future compression schemes -- I'm not pessimistic, but my crystal bowl is murky.

Addendum: I went looking for the iTunes store movie resolution. One place said 320 x 240, another said 640 x 480. Huh, I just found a *third* site that says 640 x 352. The difference *may* be TV shows vs "DVD movies" but I am not positive. Regardless, even taking the higher resoluion, we are still below standard DVD which is 720 x 480. 1920 x 1080 ? Fuggedabutit.

I'll also mention that iPods screens are limited to 260,000 colors, so the movies downloaded from the iTunes store may also be encoded with less color fidelity, to match the iPod's specs.

Lastly, the correct way to do this math is: if a movie on iTunes -- say Cars -- is listed at 1.4 GB, and we find out that it is 640x480, then a real HD 1920 x 1080 using the same codec and parameters but at 1920 x 1080 will take 1.4 GB x (1920*1080/640/480), or 6.75 times the size.